4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 24 May 2000 the applicant sued a company before the Bratislava I District Court. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to comply with its contractual obligations and to compensate damage caused to the applicant. Courts at two levels of jurisdiction dealt with mainly procedural issues (such as payment of court fees and request for legal assistance) until 26 May 2008 when the Bratislava Regional Court, on appeal, discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees of 10,270 Slovakian korunas (SKK) the equivalent of 340 euros (EUR) at the time. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on 3 July 2008. The proceedings are still pending.
6.  The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the above proceedings. On 6 July 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's request for a legal-aid lawyer, with reference to the applicant's financial situation. As the latter had not appointed a lawyer, his complaint was declared inadmissible on 10 July 2002.
7.  On 10 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected, for the same reason, the applicant's fresh request for a legal-aid lawyer to be appointed. The applicant subsequently appointed a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings and paid SKK 10,000 to that lawyer.
8.  On 20 April 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It awarded the applicant SKK 30,000 (the equivalent of EUR 755 at that time) as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay. The applicant's lawyer requested reimbursement of SKK 14,028 in respect of legal costs. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's costs by paying SKK 11,991 to the lawyer.
9.  The applicant complained that the legal costs should have been reimbursed directly to him. In a letter of 16 February 2006 a constitutional judge explained to the applicant that it had been the practice of the Constitutional Court to order the payment of costs of successful applicants to the bank account of their legal representatives. The details were subject to the agreement between the individual applicants and their lawyers.
10.  In the subsequent period the applicant lodged with the Constitutional Court several complaints about the length of the proceedings. They were declared inadmissible on 30 November 2006 (for non-compliance with formal requirements as the applicant was not legally represented) and on 16 December 2008 (the applicant complained exclusively about a period of the proceedings which had already ended). According to the internet database of the Constitutional Court's decisions, the applicant's latest complaint was rejected on 21 October 2009 for the same reason.
11.  On 6 March 2008 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded another complaint. The applicant alleged a violation of Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 in that, on 30 March 2007, the Regional Court, on appeal, had not exempted him from the obligation to pay the court fees and had dismissed his request for a legal-aid lawyer in civil proceedings. The Constitutional Court held that the Regional Court had not refused to deal with the applicant's appeal, but examined it and upheld the first-instance decision. It observed that it took the Regional Court six months to decide on the appeal and that period could not be considered excessive within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.